From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Izik Eidus <ieidus@redhat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Karl Feind <kaf@sgi.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Transparent Hugepage support
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:50:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AE9C7BF.3060509@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091029103658.GJ9640@random.random>
Hi Andrea,
I will find some time soon to test out your patch on a
(relatively) huge machine and let you know the results.
The memory size on this machine:
480,700,399,616 bytes of system memory tested OK
This translates to ~240k available 2Mb pages.
Thanks,
Mike
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Ingo, Andi, everyone,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:43:44AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> 1GB pages can't be handled by this code, and clearly it's not
>>>> practical to hope 1G pages to materialize in the buddy (even if we
>>> That seems short sightened. You do this because 2MB pages give you x%
>>> performance advantage, but then it's likely that 1GB pages will give
>>> another y% improvement and why should people stop at the smaller
>>> improvement?
>>>
>>> Ignoring the gigantic pages now would just mean that this would need
>>> to be revised later again or that users still need to use hacks like
>>> libhugetlbfs.
>> I've read the patch and have read through this discussion and you are
>> missing the big point that it's best to do such things gradually - one
>> step at a time.
>>
>> Just like we went from 2 level pagetables to 3 level pagetables, then to
>> 4 level pagetables - and we might go to 5 level pagetables in the
>> future. We didnt go from 2 level pagetables to 5 level page tables in
>> one go, despite predictions clearly pointing out the exponentially
>> increasing need for RAM.
>
> I totally agree with your assessment.
>
>> So your obsession with 1GB pages is misguided. If indeed transparent
>> largepages give us real benefits we can extend it to do transparent
>> gbpages as well - should we ever want to. There's nothing 'shortsighted'
>> about being gradual - the change is already ambitious enough as-is, and
>> brings very clear benefits to a difficult, decade-old problem no other
>> person was able to address.
>>
>> In fact introducing transparent 2MBpages makes 1GB pages support
>> _easier_ to merge: as at that point we'll already have a (finally..)
>> successful hugetlb facility happility used by an increasing range of
>> applications.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Hugetlbfs's big problem was always that it wasnt transparent and hence
>> wasnt gradual for applications. It was an opt-in and constituted an
>> interface/ABI change - that is always a big barrier to app adoption.
>>
>> So i give Andrea's patch a very big thumbs up - i hope it gets reviewed
>> in fine detail and added to -mm ASAP. Our lack of decent, automatic
>> hugepage support is sticking out like a sore thumb and is hurting us in
>> high-performance setups. If largepage support within Linux has a chance,
>> this might be the way to do it.
>
> Thanks a lot for your review!
>
>> A small comment regarding the patch itself: i think it could be
>> simplified further by eliminating CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE and by
>> making it a natural feature of hugepage support. If the code is correct
>> i cannot see any scenario under which i wouldnt want a hugepage enabled
>> kernel i'm booting to not have transparent hugepage support as well.
>
> The two reasons why I added a config option are:
>
> 1) because it was easy enough, gcc is smart enough to eliminate the
> external calls so I didn't need to add ifdefs with the exception of
> returning 0 from pmd_trans_huge and pmd_trans_frozen. I only had to
> make the exports of huge_memory.c visible unconditionally so it doesn't
> warn, after that I don't need to build and link huge_memory.o.
>
> 2) to avoid breaking build of archs not implementing pmd_trans_huge
> and that may never be able to take advantage of it
>
> But we could move CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE to an arch define forced
> to Y on x86-64 and N on power.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-29 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-26 18:51 Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-27 15:41 ` Rik van Riel
2009-10-27 18:18 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-27 19:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-28 4:28 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 12:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-28 14:18 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 14:54 ` Adam Litke
2009-10-28 15:13 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 15:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-29 15:59 ` Dave Hansen
2009-10-31 21:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-10-28 15:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-28 16:03 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 16:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-28 16:34 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 16:56 ` Adam Litke
2009-10-28 17:18 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-28 19:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-28 19:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-29 9:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-29 10:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-29 16:50 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2009-10-30 0:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-11-03 10:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-11-04 0:36 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-10-29 12:54 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-27 20:42 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-27 18:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-27 20:25 ` Chris Wright
2009-10-29 18:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-11-01 10:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-10-29 18:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-10-31 21:29 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-03 11:18 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-11-03 19:10 ` Dave Hansen
2009-11-04 4:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4AE9C7BF.3060509@sgi.com \
--to=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=ieidus@redhat.com \
--cc=kaf@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox